Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)
Date
Msg-id 20160707073402.GA1690813@tornado.leadboat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for a status update.

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 08:47:20PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the interest of clarity, I was not intending to say that there
> > should be a regression test in the patch.  I was intending to say that
> > there should be a test case with the bug report.  I'm not opposed to
> > adding a regression test, and I like the idea of attempting to do so
> > while requiring only a relatively small amount of data by changing
> > maintenance_work_mem, but that wasn't the target at which I was
> > aiming.  Nevertheless, carry on.
> 
> How do you feel about adding testing to tuplesort.c not limited to
> hitting this bug (when Valgrind memcheck is used)?

Sounds great, but again, not in the patch fixing this bug.

> Are you satisfied that I have adequately described steps to reproduce?

I can confirm that (after 62 minutes) your test procedure reached SIGSEGV
today and then completed successfully with your patch.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_xlogfile_name_offset() et al and recovery
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: Header and comments describing routines in incorrect shape in visibilitymap.c